i agree with you conceptually about only investing in thing you believe in, or rather in things you can stomach as most investments and industries have a downside if you look hard enough. eventually you get to exploited workers and poisoned rivers and solid waste. i personally struggled with the payday investment i made. the return was high, but i did not want to be associated with it. i said no for about 6 months. over that six months i learned how they (where my money is now) did business. after i understood it i had a hard time thinking of it any differently than a bank. they both loan money based on ones ability to earn money and pay it back. the only difference is the duration and the size of the loan. a bank allows me to spend money i don't have on a credit card and then charges me 13-18% until i pay them back while they themselves are leveraged 10 to 1 on those dollars loaned. the payday place will only loan me money that will be covered in my NEXT paycheck and charge me a flat fee of $5 or $10 while they themselves have a dollar for every dollar they loan out. when i look at it like that i really had no problem with the payday place, but started to have them with the banks. the payday places are not dragging the economy down because of their recklessness. they are also not enslaving an entire generation by offering them credit they cannot pay back. there are people who use them recklessly, and it is real easy to point them out because they are the fringe. it is a little harder to point out the middle class suburbanite who is a slave to their credit card and bank because they get up and go to work each day and keep a nice yard but are living on credit. both industries lend money and both are technically guilty of charging people who don't have money. they are in business to make money, not give it away. in the end neither is good nor bad just as fire is neither good nor bad. the good or bad all depends on who uses it and how they use it. the payday places service a far less afluent and unsophisticated clientele and therefore gives them very little wiggle room to abuse the system. if they want to stay one paycheck behind for the rest of their lives, that is about all they can do. the bank will let me get decades behind because they assume i am responsible and won't let it come to that but do little to stop me and recently have even encouraged me to do so. in my mind it is a match compared to the bonfire. both can be abused, but the potential abuse of a credit card is far greater. but there may be other payday places that have different policies than where i invested. mind you i don't have equity in the payday place�"they borrowed money from me to lend. in short my money is on deposit to be lent out just as if i put it in a savings account for the bank to lend out on a credit card loan. the main difference is my rate of return is almost 10 times higher but not FDIC insured. the only thing i do struggle with is the 10% they charge for cashing checks. this is outrageous in my opinion. i can't understand why anybody would do that unless they were unable to cash it elsewhere and i won't speculate as to why. but in the end they have their reason and are paying a premium for it. and with that i leave it. cigarettes are another issue and i am totally with you. i feel the same way about other products as well most are not as overtly damaging, but their products do carry liability and they push them with abandon to those who are hurt by them. not just talking guns and alcohol. a few minutes watching saturday morning cartoons was an eyeopener to the type of products marketed to kids. slap a mcdonald's logo on a bucket of mud and i think my kids would want to eat it. a friend of mine who is militant about his hate for phillip-morris and smoking in general (i think he lost a parent to lung cancer) holds half his portfolio in tobacco stocks. he justification was that it "those people" are going to annoy him with their smoke and take his taxes in healthcare, they are going to pay him for it. an interesting take on moral investing practices, but for him it makes sense. i respect your desire to not follow my practice of investing in payday lending. we not only have to undderstand our investments, but repect if not love them. i do not love payday lending, and to be honest would rather be elsewhere, but for the time being it is a good place and i am no so morally apposed to money lending as to not take the opportunity. i do however own no bank stocks for obvious reasons, i think their model is risky. i also think they are on the more unethical side of business. they have laws and loopholes that allow them to do things that are illegal to any other company. id it because we need their services and that is what it takes, or is it because they have power to influence if not make laws that favor them? i think recent events have shown us it is a little of both. before i sound too anti-establishment, let me say i think financial institutions are important and necessary�"ie. banks, insurance companies, the US government, the FED, and even payday lenders. BUT they are in busniness to make themselves rich, not us. if you do not understand what they are doing, how they make money, or worse, what you are doing, they will take advantage of you. thus education. it is through education that you can see the smoke and mirrors they use to make you feel good about making them rich at your expense. one of the most ubiquitous is the home mortgage. i am emphatic that the most expensive ways to buy a house are in this order; cash, paid off early mortgage, continually refinanced mortgage, a 15-year note, a 30-year note, ARM, variable rate, interest only, and deferred interest-AKA sub-prime being the cheapest. that said, i don't like differed interest as it assumes the risk in the real estate market and if used by the uneducated or irresponsible it can (and has) blown up in the borrowers face. what does the bank want you to do? they love you to take out a 30 year and refinance every few years or pay it off early. if you are going to take it to term, they prefer you take out a 15-year because it makes them more money and that is why they have a cheaper rate to take it�"they need to give you incentive to do what benefits them and think you are getting the better end of the deal�"if it makes them more money, how can it also save you money and show up in two places at once? this all sounds like hericy i know. but where do we get our financial education from? our bank? alan greenspan has a nice quote about the variable interest only mortgage being the best deal out there if people only knew how to use it and the 30 year not serving its customers as the think. i will see if i can find it. the mortgage subject was perhaps the most eye-opening and influential education i ever had in finance. it is the lesson that taught me to see the whole equation and not look at a financial strategy in a vacuum. it taught me to understand finance on a macro economic level to understand how to best use products on a micro economic level. it is painful and feels like you brain is removed and turned around and put back in. but i assure you it is all true and useful information, but it requires the user to be responsible for their financial life and some are not willing to do this and for them it is not wise to have control. just as fire in the hands a of one is destructive and to another the opposite. what i am talking about is basic business finance�"in short figuring out the lost opportunity cost and the taking the greatest margin. if done properly with understanding risk is minimized and growth is maximized. some will refuse to believe, but that does not prove those strategies wrong. i myself do not practice whole-heartedly all the strategies i know an believe because of issues regarding timing, my own laziness or whatever. this does not mean i don't acknowledge their strengths or potential. but it serves me to understand alternatives. there are many i have encountered on this forum and in other places who flat out throw up a wall and won't even try to understand that there are several strategies to use in every situation and they all have merits. my beef is with those who claim merits that are not truly there or ignore others. those who emotionally attach themselves to dogma that was sold to them without trying to understand. i have been guilty of this and still am at times and it only hurts myself. when i have a few hours to spend with a calculator, i will start a new thread and actually run the numbers on the most popular mortgage products side-by-side including paying cash. i will treat all as equals. it is amazing how different the outcome is from popular beliefs, but if you look at who is selling the mortgages and the information i guess it is not shocking. it won't prove anything other than which is the most expensive in terms of money and what risks are inherent in each scenario. the individual would have to choose which is best for them. the problem is that most choose the wrong thing for what they claim to want. if you know how they each work you can choose more appropriately for your goals whatever they may be.

Azzalea, I know, there is risk. But I would be absolutely warn out if I tried to eliminate every risk. The only ID in my car is the DL. No SS card, I never need that, it's locked in safe in the house. I just never routinely need a credit card with me, so those don't leave the house, either. My SS # is on nothing I ever carry with me from the house in any way. However, I have had to give that about 6 times to different agencies (over the phone, online and in writing on forms) in the last few months to get my certification for teaching and apply to the school district. They do a background check, so I also have to give my DL#, maiden name, every place I've lived. THEY have my life in their hands! I have to trust them, though, or not pursue that career. So it seems I put my information more at risk in situations like that, where I cannot avoid it. I need those cards a few times a year, that's it. I can go months without needing to show the DL, the AAA or the med. insurance to anyone. What else is there... um, extra discount member cards (like Petsmart, Barnes & Noble), library card, etc, nothing else valuable, I have a simple life. Mini those are all on my key ring, too (it's my life, honestly have more mini-cards than keys, I only wish the state would issue mini DL). If I carry the other stuff with me, I will lose them or leave them somewhere they would be more at risk than in my car. The places from which someone could steal my identity are so numerous, and nothing I can do about it but trust the keepers of that information. (Like the state board of teacher certification computers, for example.) Keeping a DL, insurance card, and AAA card in my car is minimal compared to the possible risks I cannot control. The more I carry on me, the more I will lose. It's the times I've had to replace my DL that convinced me to just lock it in the car and always know where it is. Odds of someone getting my information from another source/agency are greater than for my minivan being stolen. It's frustrating, but the risks are everywhere, and I cannot eliminate the biggest ones, so I'm not going to pretend I have control by obsessing over the little ones. That's just my take on life, really. I cannot control everything, I accecpt it rather than try to fight and deny it. ;o) If I carried every thing with me in a purse, I could be at risk of having it stolen right off my shoulder. If I left the cards at home, I could be burglarized or have a house fire. If it's in my car, it could be stolen with the car. What is a person to do? Maybe it's best if all the important stuff just isn't in the same place, spread the risk. Is the risk of a stolen minivan greater than the risk of a stolen purse or buglary? I can tell you I'm very protective of my key ring b/c it has my debit card on it. I always wear something with a pocket, never put them down anywhere. I don't lose them! LOL.

Most RE attorneys will not facilitate a "Subject To" closing, because they feel like they are helping to facilitate a civil crime. The current mortgage has a Due On Sale Clause which means that if the deed is transferred, the current mortgage must be paid in full. This clause was added in the 80's when interest rates skyrocketed and people found it beneficial to take a note subject to, at the current interest rate, as opposed to getting a new loan at the current, high interest rate. I know an investor that does Subject To deals all the time, and the lenders have never called the note due. But there is always that chance. He only is in posession of the home for a very short time, as he immediately rehabs and sells them. Unlike you would be. Another thing to think about... what is going to happen when you go to buy your next home and the lender finds that you have another mortgage? You will probably not qualify. And if you do, it might be considered a second home, which raises other issues. I personally would not do it... too much risk. If you do go through with it, set up a banking account in your name where the drsfts for the mortgage payments will be coming from, so the bank does not see the change. You will also have to figure out how to fool the banks as far as the insurance policy changing names, but the house was never sold. This is a major way that the bank will know that the home has changed hands. As you can see, even if no one has ever been prosecuted for doing this kind of thing, it is shady at best.

Houses in "desirable" areas (not the cheap crap in the outskirts from the 1990-98 boom years) are moving reasonable well, according to my neighbor the agent (20+ years in the area). Here's the deal with buying for cash, from my sister the real estate investor. It doesn't matter to the seller HOW you pay for it so there is no leverage for any lower pricing just because you wave a wad of greenbacks. Just like in other buying, check the comparables, make an offer and give them 24-48 hours to accept or counter. Go on to the next house if you are rejected, or if you have enough cash, make several offers and buy several houses. It gives you an advantage because you don't have to qualify for the mortgage, so you can close faster and not have to write a contract conditional on getting a loan. Don't be insulted if an agent asks to see proof of the cash before writing up a contract. They need to protect their client.